neilfoster

Religious Freedom and the NSW Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024

I have prepared a paper exploring the operation of the NSW Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 in relation to the freedom of churches and other religious groups to continue to provide teaching and guidance based on the tenets of their faith. The Act has received assent but will not commence operation until 3 April 2025.

Overall, the Act contains much better protections for religious freedom and the welfare of vulnerable children and young people than similar legislation elsewhere. But there are some areas where it is not clear, and it will require careful consideration by religious groups, as well those interested in so-called “gender transition” issues even from a non-religious background.

The paper can be downloaded here:

religious-freedom-and-nsw-conversion-practices-ban-act-2024Download
neilfoster

Challenges to Religious Freedom: Conversion Practices law passed, ALRC report released

A brief update on two significant challenges to religious freedom which have emerged over the last few days.

First, in NSW, the Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024 has been rushed through both Houses of Parliament, receiving final approval on Friday March 22 after an all-night debate in the Legislative Council, and is now awaiting the Royal Assent. I posted about this Bill recently. There I said:

Legislation of this sort has been introduced in other jurisdictions around Australia and elsewhere. The aim of banning oppressive and violent practices designed to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual is good, of course. But those practices, while they may have existed some time ago, are really no longer around. The problem with these laws now is that their drafting can be so broad that they interfere with the ordinary teaching of religious doctrines and life within families. These laws are also often premised on the assumption that “gender transition” is a good thing which should be freely available to children, whether or not with parental permission. They raise important issues of concern to all those interested in the welfare of children, whether or not from a religious perspective.

In that more detailed post I outlined the problems with the Bill. I noted that it is at least better than some others which have passed, especially the bad Victorian law. But none of the suggested amendments put forward by faith groups and the Opposition and other members were accepted by the government, which had the numbers with the Greens to push it through unchanged.

So churches and other religious groups will need to consider carefully where the line can be drawn between counselling which urges someone to live in accordance with God’s will (by not engaging in sex outside a man/woman marriage, or by living in line with one’s biological reality), and counselling which “suppresses” a person’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. The Bill (soon to be an Act) will also put a thumb on the scales of advice to those wrestling with gender confusion, in favour of “affirming” treatment, when the scientific evidence is becoming increasingly clear that for young people, puberty blockers and other such treatments are not shown to be of help, and lead to massive bodily change which can usually not be reversed.

The Act, once given assent, is due to come into operation in one year.

The second concerning development is that on Wednesday 21 March the Australian Law Reform Commission released its report Maximising the Realisation of Human Rights: Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws (ALRC Report 142). Far from “maximising” human rights, the report (as expected by those who spoke to some of its researchers) would have the effect, if adopted, of seriously impairing the operation of faith-based schools around Australia. In brief, it recommends removal of all of “balancing clauses” in the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984 which currently recognise the need to balance the religious freedom of faith-based schools with rights of teachers and students not to be detrimentally treated on the basis of sexual activity or “gender identity”. In particular, this would remove (among other provisions) section 38 of that Act, which allows faith schools to operate in accordance with their religious ethos when making staffing and educational decisions.

The Prime Minister has noted that the government has not made a decision to formally accept these recommendations. He has indicated, however, that since the report was made available to the government in December, two draft pieces of legislation have been prepared (though not made publicly available). He has indicated he would like bi-partisan support from the federal Opposition. It has to be said that views on these issues seem so strongly held that this seems unlikely. But it will all depend on the wording of any proposed laws.

Australia needs to decide if it wants to offer parents the option of having their children educated in faith-based schools, or not. Many parents have signalled they want this option, by sending their children to such schools. But if those schools find that their very reason for existence, operating in accordance with a religious world-view, is taken away, it seems likely that many will decide it is not worth continuing operations. The federal government needs to listen very carefully to all sides of this debate.

neilfoster

More issues with the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024

I am happy to present a guest post today from Associate Professor Mark Fowler, raising more issues of concern from a religious freedom perspective with the recently released proposed Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 . Dr Mark Fowler is Principal, Fowler Charity Law, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Notre Dame, School of Law, Sydney and an External Fellow at the Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law, University of Queensland.

The concerns can be broadly grouped as follows:

  1. The Bill’s exception for employment by religious institutions would enact the most restrictive regime in Australia;
  2. The Bill will require religious institutions to provide services against their religious beliefs;
  3. The imposed ‘duty to eliminate discrimination’ will require religious institutions to proactively engage in activities that do not conform to their religious beliefs; and
  4. The Bill fails to protect religious individuals from discrimination when they engage in collaborative effort with fellow believers. 

Continue reading

neilfoster

NSW Conversion Practices Bill- risks to religious freedom

The NSW government has introduced a Conversion Practices Ban Bill 2024 into the Parliament, with the apparent aim of moving it through very quickly. Legislation of this sort has been introduced in other jurisdictions around Australia and elsewhere. The aim of banning oppressive and violent practices designed to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual is good, of course. But those practices, while they may have existed some time ago, are really no longer around. The problem with these laws now is that their drafting can be so broad that they interfere with the ordinary teaching of religious doctrines and life within families. These laws are also often premised on the assumption that “gender transition” is a good thing which should be freely available to children, whether or not with parental permission. They raise important issues of concern to all those interested in the welfare of children, whether or not from a religious perspective.

But laws of this sort can in particular have significant implications for religious freedom. I have previously provided a detailed analysis of the Victorian legislation on this topic, noting the serious problems that law has created. The good news in NSW is that the government does seem to have listened to some of the concerns about the law raised by religious leaders and other concerned citizens. The Bill is certainly an improvement on the Victorian model. But there are a number of areas where it could be clearer in protecting important rights of all members of the community, to speak and act freely in accordance with their convictions and biological reality.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Queensland – new proposed discrimination law

The Queensland government has released a draft of a proposed new discrimination law for public comment. The proposed Anti-Discrimination Bill 2024 will make some radical changes to Queensland law, and of interest here is that it will seriously impact religious freedom in that State. One of the ways that religious freedom is protected in Australia is through the inclusion in discrimination laws of “balancing clauses” (provisions that balance the right not to be discriminated against, with the important right of religious freedom). But the new Bill will dramatically narrow those clauses.

I am pleased to present a guest blog post commenting on some religious freedom impacts of the draft Bill, from Dr Alex Deagon, an Associate Professor in the School of Law at QUT, and an internationally recognised researcher in religious freedom.

Continue reading

neilfoster

“Gender critical” victories in tribunal cases

Over the last month there have been three important tribunal decisions (two in the UK, one in Australia) in favour of women who had been disciplined or dismissed or sued for expressing “gender critical” views. This phrase, broadly, refers to those who believe that sex is a biological reality and that someone’s gender aligns with their sex. Allegations of “transgender vilification” or claims that someone’s views on this matter can be a ground for workplace penalties have been common over the last few years. But the three cases I want to mention here (involving social worker Rachel Meade, academic Dr Jo Phoenix, and commentator Kirralie Smith) suggest that the tide may be turning in favour of those who hold the view that biology matters.

Continue reading

neilfoster

“Equality” Bill threatens religious freedom in NSW

Independent MP Mr A H Greenwich last year introduced a private member’s bill called the Equality Legislation Amendment (LGBTIQA+) Bill 2023 (“the Bill”) into the NSW Parliament. It is understood that time will be allowed for debate on the Bill on February 8, 2024. Freedom for Faith has an excellent overview of the many areas covered by the Bill and why the Bill should not proceed. Most private member’s Bills are not approved, but there is a danger that some MP’s might support some of the provisions of this Bill. In this post I will focus on some of the dangers to religious freedom in NSW if the Bill were passed. (There are so many that I may not cover them all in one post, and if I can I will try to pick up those I miss here in a later post.)

In this post I will focus on the proposed amendments to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (“ADA”).

Continue reading

neilfoster

Voluntary assisted dying laws partly invalid

An important decision handed down recently in the Federal Court of Australia rules that part of Victoria’s euthanasia law (the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic)(“VADA 2017”)) is invalid, as it authorises assistance with suicide, which is prohibited by Federal law. The decision, of Abrahams J as a single judge in the Federal Court, is Carr v Attorney-General (Cth) [2023] FCA 1500 (30 November 2023). The implication is that similar provisions of other State and Territory laws are also invalid. The relevant federal law, sections 474.29A and 474.29B of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, contained in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), in broad terms, makes it an offence to assist or encourage someone to commit suicide through use of a “carriage service”, most commonly by use of a telephone (either a voice call or a text message), email, or some internet service.

In my opinion laws like the VADA 2017 are bad for the community. Western society has long had strong prohibitions on taking one’s own life. At the end of life when terminal illness is involved, we have developed palliative care now to the point where on the whole serious pain is not an issue. Of course decisions can be taken when death is imminent to make someone comfortable, even if this incidentally leads to a small hastening of death. But VAD 2017 and similar laws have crossed the line into a world where a person can give up on life even when serious pain and imminent death are not involved, and these laws force doctors to be takers of life, rather than healers. They also often impose serious burdens on the religious freedom of practitioners and organisations with a strong commitment to the value of life who are pressured, or sometimes forced, to take part in these procedures.

(For excellent commentary on end of life issues generally, see this page of resources from Ethicentre. In particular, see this comment from Megan Best on problems with the current assisted dying laws. For previous comment on this blog about these laws, see here and here.)

In this context it is good to see a narrowing of the operation of the laws. The effect of the decision in Carr will not be to remove all the bad features of the laws- face to face consultations and advice by post are still available. But they should give medical practitioners asked to participate in these processes serious cause to reflect as to whether they might be subject to penalties under federal law.

Continue reading

neilfoster

New NSW “Religious Vilification” law

An amendment to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, making certain types of speech connected with religion unlawful, commenced operation on 11 November 2023. The amendment, made by the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Vilification) Act 2023 (No 15 of 2023) (“the ADA”), is a form of “religious vilification” law which has not previously been in force in NSW. It is not as bad as some forms of such laws in terms of its effect on religious freedom, but it is worth being aware of its potential operation. It will be important, for example, for those preaching and teaching the Bible (or other religious texts) to understand what the law does, and perhaps more importantly, does not, prohibit.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Two cases on sex and gender identity

Two recent Australian cases raise important questions about sex and gender identity as legal categories. One, a decision of the highest appellate court in NSW, held that a change in sex under the law of a State does not require a change to be made in a marriage certificate issued under Commonwealth law. The other is a decision still awaiting a final hearing in the Federal Court, where the operator of a females-only only social networking site is being sued for her decision to exclude an applicant who was born biologically male but has since undergone “gender affirming surgery”. Though neither case explicitly involves anyone whose views are based on religious beliefs, both raise important issues which connect with “law and religion” interests, and are worthy of noting.

Continue reading